Tyrants in Black Robes

[longknife]

I read the teaser on this blog and it caught my attention. Everywhere we look, another judge is either staying or overturning laws passed by duly elected representatives and signed into law by duly-elected governors or approved by a vote of the people.


Is this what our representative republic is all about? A few men and women sitting in a courtroom somewhere over-riding the will of the majority? As the piece says, if according to the 10th Amendment ““rights and powers” not specifically itemized in the Constitution are held by the people collectively or by the states: by what rights to judges overturn the will of the people?


Read the article @ Doug Ross Journal Tyrants in Black Robes

 

[Syriusly]

Is this what our representative republic is all about? A few men and women sitting in a courtroom somewhere over-riding the will of the majority? As the piece says, if according to the 10th Amendment ““rights and powers” not specifically itemized in the Constitution are held by the people collectively or by the states: by what rights to judges overturn the will of the people?
\

Do you believe that the voters of the State of Texas could vote to legalize slavery in Texas- and that no judge should be able to declare such a law 'unconstitutional'?

Oh that too sensational for you?

how about this- do you think that the voters of New York should be able to ban the ownership of handguns? Or should the courts be able to declare such a law unconstituional?

The Constitution doesn't say a word about handguns.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Conservatives only seem to declare judges tyrants, when laws they agree with are overturned.

But never have a problem with judges when they overturn laws they don't agree with.

 

[heirtothewind]

It's called SEPARATION OF POWERS that prevents the vote of the majority from trampling on the rights of the minority. If people vote for a law that Jews cannot own a business or Afro-Americans must live segregated from white people, then the courts must invalidate the law. This idea is in Federalist Paper No. 10. If that document is too brain-taxing, borrow a high school civics book. Remember that everything Hitler did was legal -- voted in by the people through their elected representatives.

 

[bianco]

I read the teaser on this blog and it caught my attention. Everywhere we look, another judge is either staying or overturning laws passed by duly elected representatives and signed into law by duly-elected governors or approved by a vote of the people.


Is this what our representative republic is all about? A few men and women sitting in a courtroom somewhere over-riding the will of the majority? As the piece says, if according to the 10th Amendment ““rights and powers” not specifically itemized in the Constitution are held by the people collectively or by the states: by what rights to judges overturn the will of the people?


Read the article @ Doug Ross Journal Tyrants in Black Robes

The sooner the judges abolish unjust laws and punishments the better.
Starting with the premeditated, cold-blooded execution-homiciding by the States of human beings in death chambers.

Given the torturing of inmates happening in US prisons, ...individuals and whole cell blocks being gassed, causing second degree burns, for example.
Inmates being gang-raped...the system is a joke.
Judges should avoid sending people to prison at every opportunity...using home detention, and community service instead.